Re: Re: [boost] Re: Next revision of boost::thread

From: William E. Kempf (wekempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-09 14:59:24

> From: Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> At 11:44 AM 1/9/2003, William E. Kempf wrote:
> 
>  >As for conditional compilation... the Boost.Filesystem stuff has no
>  >need for this, while Boost.Threads has a very definate need.
> 
> The reason that Boost.Filesystem doesn't have conditional compilation is 
> that a design decision was made to limit the library to features which 
> could be implemented in both POSIX and Windows.
> 
> Otherwise it would have been shot full of optional/conditional features.
> 
> I'm not saying Boost.Threads should take exactly the same approach, but I'd 
> rather not see a lot of optional/conditional features to support operating 
> systems other than those two O/S families.

Well, everything that's optional in what I proposed for Boost.Threads (so far) happens to also be optional on POSIX (and by using the same conditional compilation scheme).  That's precisely why I said "As for conditional compilation... the Boost.Filesystem stuff has no need for this, while Boost.Threads has a very definate need."

The features left to be provided by Boost.Threads (other than barriers, thread pools and read/write mutexes), and that most of it's users are requesting, happen to fall into this "optional" category in POSIX.

William E. Kempf
wekempf_at_[hidden]